ANTI-TERROR – Islam21chttps://www.islam21c.com
Articulating Islam in the 21st CenturyThu, 21 Feb 2019 21:12:34 +0000en-GBhourly1147071544Prevent strategy is ‘built on a foundation of Islamophobia and racism’https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/prevent-strategy-is-built-on-a-foundation-of-islamophobia-and-racism/
https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/prevent-strategy-is-built-on-a-foundation-of-islamophobia-and-racism/#respondWed, 30 Aug 2017 12:00:41 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=27842According to a new report, the Prevent strategy is “built on a foundation of Islamophobia and racism”. The report also states that the strategy is “ineffective and counterproductive” and should be repealed. Prevent is one of the four stands of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy which is known as ‘contest’. ‘JUST Yorkshire’ launched an independent review ...

]]>According to a new report, the Prevent strategy is “built on a foundation of Islamophobia and racism”. The report also states that the strategy is “ineffective and counterproductive” and should be repealed. Prevent is one of the four stands of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy which is known as ‘contest’.

‘JUST Yorkshire’ launched an independent review of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy. The long anticipated report suggests the Prevent strategy of the government’s counter-terrorism method must be withdrawn immediately to avoid any further human rights abuses.

The report, entitled “Rethinking Prevent: A Case for an Alternative Approach”, studies the disturbing consequences of the Prevent strategy on society.

JUST Yorkshire is a racial equality organisation working to support civil liberties, human rights and racial justice by challenging racism, discrimination and racial injustice. The organisation has been set up by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and it is also funded by Oxfam and Lloyds TSB Foundation.

The independent review conducted by them is supported by the international grant making network known as Open Society Foundations, which supports civil society groups across the world.

For many years, Prevent has been criticised as being Islamophobic and racist. It has targetted the Muslim community and, over the years, its implementation has deteriorated civil liberties, thus restricting political opposition and constraining any possible room for essential dialogue within our schools, colleges and universities.

This latest report has appeared at a time when many have criticised, opposed and called for the repeal and/or a review of the strategy. This ranges from the National Union of Students (NUS), Federation of Student Islamic Students (FOSIS), the University and College Union (UCU), National Union of Teachers (NUT), faith groups and activists. As well as these groups, many cross-party MPs and even the Government’s own reviewer of terrorism legislation has opposed the government’s strategy and terror laws. Government adviser, Max Hill QC stated that the British government’s terror laws should be scrapped as they are “unnecessary”.

Some have even challenged the lawfulness of the Prevent Duty Guidance, such as Dr Salman Butt who put forward a claim for judicial review challenging the legality of Prevent and its guidance. A summary of the judgement can be found in Dr Salman Butt’s article.

“…has engaged with grassroots perspectives and has highlighted the many harms of Prevent, particularly those impacting on Muslim minorities. Our report adds to a number of established critical accounts of Prevent and we hope it is now the start of genuine public debate that seeks to move beyond this failed and counter productive policy.”

The report also expressed that many “…human rights abuses have been carried out through the implementation of Prevent, targeting mostly British Muslim men and also activists because of their dissenting views.”

The report revealed evidence that indicated how “some institutions are interpreting their responsibilities under the umbrella of Prevent as a requirement to focus their attention on Muslims.”

It also highlighted that “A generation of politicised British Muslim activists have emerged who are democratically challenging the government’s approach to counter-terrorism.”

The report also expressed that there is no supporting evidence to demonstrate the success of the strategy and that, “…there is a lack of transparency and accountability that must be questioned.”

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/prevent-strategy-is-built-on-a-foundation-of-islamophobia-and-racism/feed/027842Turkey’s AK Party ratifies Military Deployment and Joint Cooperation with Qatarhttps://www.islam21c.com/news-views/turkeys-ak-party-ratifies-military-deployment-and-joint-cooperation-with-qatar/
https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/turkeys-ak-party-ratifies-military-deployment-and-joint-cooperation-with-qatar/#respondWed, 07 Jun 2017 19:50:03 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=26918Turkish Parliament Just days after six Arab nations cut diplomatic ties with Qatar, the Turkish Parliament today responded by ratifying two deals to boost military co-operation with its long-standing ally and brotherly nation. The military deals will allow Turkish military forces to be deployed in Qatari territory and allow Turkish gendarmerie forces to train Qatari ...

Just days after six Arab nations cut diplomatic ties with Qatar, the Turkish Parliament today responded by ratifying two deals to boost military co-operation with its long-standing ally and brotherly nation. The military deals will allow Turkish military forces to be deployed in Qatari territory and allow Turkish gendarmerie forces to train Qatari gendarmerie forces in Qatar. The two countries aim to carry out joint exercises in an effort to contribute to regional and world peace, [1] and comes after a time the tiny nation of Qatar that has long supported Muslim causes around the world finds itself isolated by its huge neighbouring monarchies.

The Turkish Parliament is set to go into recess during the period of Ramadan.

Erdogan’s efforts

Turkey’s swift action comes after the President of Turkey and Leader of the ruling AK Party Recep Tayyip Erdogan addressed an Iftar (end of fast) gathering of AK Party deputies in the Turkish capital Ankara saying; “I want to clearly say that we disapprove of the sanctions on Qatar” referring to the ongoing row between Qatar and its’ GCC allies. He further added; “These developments, coming at a time when we need solidarity and cooperation more than ever, are no good for any country in the region.” Qatar currently hosts the largest US military base in the Middle-East containing some 11,000 US military personnel. Despite this, President Trump extraordinarily joined the list of nations accusing Qatar of supporting terrorism, [2] therefore putting the long-term presence of this base in question and increasing the small nation’s vulnerability. Qatar has long been accused of leveraging the presence of base and its importance to the US for its own political autonomy, hosting many of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood exiles, scholars and activists as well as members of Hamas’ senior political bureau.

Erdogan stressed the importance of dialogue in these situations and assured that Turkey stands by to engage in necessary effort in whatever it can. [3] He further appreciated Qatari efforts by stating; “within this framework, we appreciate the cool-headed and constructive attitude presented by Qatar. The fact that Qatar, which we know is waging an effective struggle against terrorism, is being isolated in this way cannot solve any problems. I hope that all sanctions against Qatar will be lifted as soon as possible.”

He also dispelled the very heavy accusations that have been levelled against Qatar, the latter accused of being a “terror suspect” despite supporting the democratically elected governments of Egypt, Palestine and Libya. Turkish President added;

“I’ve known them for 15 years. If such a thing existed, I would be the first president to oppose them. But I have not seen this. There is a different game being played here. We have not yet been able to determine those behind this game yet, but we need to disappoint those waiting for an opportunity to meddle in the region.” [4]

Qatar has insisted that the allegations of its neighbours are “baseless” and called for dialogue to resolve this issue. [5]

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/turkeys-ak-party-ratifies-military-deployment-and-joint-cooperation-with-qatar/feed/026918Innocent until proven Muslim?https://www.islam21c.com/politics/innocent-until-proven-muslim/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/innocent-until-proven-muslim/#commentsMon, 27 Mar 2017 17:02:33 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=25638‘Innocent until proven guilty’, is the principle known as the presumption of innocence. It is the principle that assumes innocence putting the burden of proof on the accuser. This principle applies in most countries now, thankfully, including the UK, and was enshrined as a basic human right under article 11 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of ...

]]>‘Innocent until proven guilty’, is the principle known as the presumption of innocence. It is the principle that assumes innocence putting the burden of proof on the accuser. This principle applies in most countries now, thankfully, including the UK, and was enshrined as a basic human right under article 11 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.[1] For Muslims this has been enshrined in the Law since fourteen centuries earlier, as the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhī wa sallam) said: “Al-bayyina ʿalā al-Muddaʿī—[the duty] to clarify is upon the claimant.”[2]

However, this most basic of God-given rights seemingly does not apply today to the Muslim community in relation to acts of terrorism. In fact, far from being innocent until proven guilty, the presumption of guilt starts from the outset, without reliable evidence and proof. Some tend to selectively ignore this trend but others are more open about it.[3] Indeed, the pressures are so great, that a level of self-guilt has been consciously or subconsciously absorbed by many in the Muslim community itself.

Let us take, for instance, the terror attack in Westminster last week.[4] Even before any formal confirmation that a terrorist atrocity actually had been carried out, some national Muslim representative organisations had begun to condemn it. This may at face value seem very reasonable; after all, why would we not condemn something categorically forbidden by the Sharīʿa? However, in my opinion if we look at the context, what such a swift and specific condemnation did was instantly associate ‘Muslims’ with this act of terror.

This leads to what is known as ‘guilt by association.’ There is always overwhelming pressure, on Muslim organisations, from right wing sections of the media and islamophobes. They expect us in particular to condemn because they want to reinforce the association between terrorism and Muslims. Hence, to negate such criticism, Muslim organisations are always obligated to denounce and almost seem in a hurry to condemn, even before the full facts are known. In fact, as it then ultimately transpired after four days of intensive enquiries, the police investigating the attack have concluded that the alleged perpetrator “acted entirely alone for reasons that may never be known.”[5] Hence, the reality is that the incident may never have been Islam-related or even politically motivated at all, despite the location of the attack being virtually on the doorstep of the Houses of Parliament.

There has almost become a predestined sequence of stages that the Muslim community seem to go through once news of a putative terrorist incident comes through. After the initial shock and horror, there is a forlorn hope, desire and some may argue desperation, that the perpetrator not be a Muslim. As a consequence this results in the knee-jerk ‘Muslim condemnation’ from the various Muslim representatives, even before the facts are known. This condemnation then seamlessly merges into a phase which can be best described as a form of ‘community restorative justice’ together with a defiant defence of Islām. Restorative justice is when an offender, in this case the party presumed guilty, carries out an act of making amends for a crime that they may have committed. To this end, the Muslim community sent countless messages of sympathy, condolences and took part in many acts of solidarity, with a Muslim group reportedly raising £18k in one day for the victims.[6]

The Muslim community of Birmingham felt an even greater sense of ‘guilt by association’ due to the fact that the alleged perpetrator had lived in Birmingham for a period of time. This motivated hundreds to attend a demonstration in Birmingham which was themed as ‘Not In My Name’.[7] This ‘Not In My Name’ title was used by the anti-war movement when the Blair government voted for Britain’s involvement in the invasion and war in Iraq. The irony is that a sense of ‘opting-out’ is possible when it comes to democratic decisions made by parliamentarians, however what level of ‘opting-out’ is possible when your association is determined by your faith and the city in which you live?

There definitely are good arguments for the showing of sympathy, solidarity, outrage, and so on. However the question here is the self-guilt that many of us may have absorbed over the years. Professedly to counter Islamophobic myths and stereotypes push out by “the media”, the Muslim community have released statements, press releases, countless condemnations, taken part in demonstrations, acts of solidarity and even raised money for victims. But will this actually fix the problem? Will this make those Islamophobes who have been brainwashed by multimillion-dollar industry,[8] begin to like us? Will this show that Islam is truly a religion of peace? Will the gaze of suspicion ever move away from the Muslim community when there is another act of terrorism? The answer to all of the above, in my opinion, is no.

Breaking the Cycle

In their article, After Westminster: It’s going to take courage to break the cycle,[9] advocacy group CAGE refer to a cycle which starts with a terrorist incident and which always ends in more draconian, counterproductive “anti-terror” legislation. Unfortunately, as a consequence of systemic failures such as PREVENT, we have seen time and again Muslims disproportionately categorised as “terrorists” for doing similar crimes as others (many times not even actual crimes). This is fundamentally because the government’s CONTEST “Strategy for Countering Terrorism” only meaningfully covers what it terms ‘Islamic terrorism’ within the document.[10] To be precise, 124 pages of the 125-page document talk about ‘Islamic terrorism’.[11] Other forms of terrorism, including the far-right, only get tokenistic mentions. Hence, to put it in layman’s terms – the mesh size and shape for the PREVENT ‘terrorist’ fishing net is designed to only really catch Muslims that exhibit certain behaviour.

This inevitably has a knock-on effect when it comes to prosecutions. In 2016 there were 24 cases which were successfully prosecuted by the Counter Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).[12] All of these cases, with the exception of one, Thomas Mair (killer of Jo Cox MP), were apparently ‘Islamic terrorism’ related. This is a staggering 96% of the cases, despite Muslims being 5% of the population. To reflect further on this disproportionate representation, readers are free to browse the CPS site for details of the actual ‘criminals’ convicted, with apparently a far lower threshold for what constitutes “terrorism offences” if it happens to be one type of terrorism.

The Way Forward

It is evident in my opinion that our current state of affairs is untenable. No amount of condemnation, solidarity, charity or demonstrating the goodness of Islām is going break this cycle, because it only takes one person’s crime to bring us back to square one, in such a system structurally failing us.

The various national Muslim bodies and organisations which represent Muslims must now take firm and decisive action. The community on the whole have been voicing their objections to populist, structurally-racist and ultimately counterproductive “counter-terrorism” strategies for 14 years now. It is now time that Muslim organisations take their concerns and objections to the highest levels of government. There are clearly senior advocates to change, with Jeremy Corbyn stating, post the Westminster incident, that PREVENT needs to “be broadened to all communities so it doesn’t appear to target Muslims.”[13] The least that can be said that it is a symbolic gesture to recognise something so ideologically-loaded and failing so spectacularly.

In the Meantime

In the meantime, Muslim organisations, leaders and ordinary people will need to contemplate and reflect on the best way to deal with acts of terrorism (and other acts labelled as “terrorism” by the press) in future. We must ensure that condemnation is timely and not to appease the right-wing neoconservatives and Islamophobes, but sincerely for Allāh’s sake. Critically, let us ensure that we are not selective in our condemnations – there are other terrorist atrocities, national and international, commit by state and non-state actors, which also deserve condemnation, however politically inconvenient they may seem.

Instead of condemning with the intention to appease people brainwashed by the Islamophobia industry, let us instead do—or if we are unable, support—the one thing which is tried and tested to melt the hearts of those indoctrinated by hate against Islām and Muslims: daʿwah. What history has shown us is that when Muslims interact on a personal level with others, that is when Allāh opens the hearts of those in whom there is some level of honesty, integrity and commitment to truth. It is no wonder that certain Islamophobes who embody the opposite of those values have openly called for the banning of daʿwah, in the wake of last week’s attack.[14] This is a testament to their fear of those indoctrinated by their irrational hatred and ancient lies waking up!

It is now also time to call a spade a spade, and reject any association of our beautiful, peaceful and awe-inspiring Dīn of Islām with terrorism. The Muslim community can legitimately behave as the innocent party because we will refuse to assume any guilt. We will condemn only on the basis of morality, humanity and ethics, rather than any faith-based collective responsibility and self-guilt. Moreover, we must now stand in solidarity with the dignity and ʿizzah of the Dīn of Allāh and our Muslim brethren, rather than pander to whims and desires of the right wing press and the enemies of Islām.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/innocent-until-proven-muslim/feed/1425638Breaking Bad: The government’s stance on terrorism lawhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/breaking-bad-the-governments-stance-on-terrorism-law/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/breaking-bad-the-governments-stance-on-terrorism-law/#commentsWed, 23 Sep 2015 09:54:14 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=19218On the 18th of September, 31-year-old father-of-two Mohammed Ali was sentenced to eight years in prison[1] for trying to buy ricin off of an undercover FBI agent on the Internet, inspired by the TV series Breaking Bad. This was following the Aspergers syndrome sufferer’s conviction for the offence after a trial in July.[2] When I read ...

]]>On the 18th of September, 31-year-old father-of-two Mohammed Ali was sentenced to eight years in prison[1] for trying to buy ricin off of an undercover FBI agent on the Internet, inspired by the TV series Breaking Bad. This was following the Aspergers syndrome sufferer’s conviction for the offence after a trial in July.[2] When I read the story last Friday, I thought this was another routine case of someone convicted of “terrorism”, as the headlines led me to believe. As it turns out, the defendant was in fact convicted of attempting to possess a chemical weapon pursuant to the Criminal Attempts Act[3] and the Chemical Weapons Act.[4]

The conviction is compelling for two reasons. Firstly, it was a case where there was a nexus to explosives in which a terrorism conviction was not sought. It displays how conditioned I am to expect the government to use the appealing use of the term terrorism to support a conviction.

However, what is more interesting is the fact that the regular criminal law was applied to deal with an act which may fall into a definition of terrorism. The perpetrator was inspired to explore the chemical compound of ricin after watching Breaking Bad, where ricin is the main character’s weapon of choice. The case is another example of how the regular criminal law can be used to stop illicit acts without the need to resort to the use of terrorism laws.

The conventional criminal law has previously dealt with purported terrorism plots. For example, Zaccarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder for his connection to the 9/11 attacks. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was convicted for attempted murder after trying to detonate a bomb on an aeroplane. The ordinary criminal law includes inchoate offences such as conspiracy, incitement and attempt which can be utilised long before any felonious terrorist violence can occur.

Unfortunately, there is a consensus amongst most Parliamentarians that a body of terrorism law within the criminal framework must exist. This can be displayed through the cross party consensus of passing terrorism laws such as the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act.[5] The justification for such a stance is that the regular criminal law cannot combat the threat of terrorism. The crime of terrorism is seen as such an egregious act, which can cause widespread destruction, that the police need greater powers. I had written in a previous article that this attitude has led to an era of pre-crime.[6] Police are allowed to intervene and arrest someone when they are far removed from a delinquent act.[7]

However, there are a number of inherent problems in trying to define terrorism and use it as part of the criminal law. The polity in trying to attain an objective definition is impossible, and Margaret Thatcher’s adage that “Crime is crime is crime. It is not political”[8] is palpably false. The cliché of “one man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter” is a cliché because it is true. A terrorist is in the eye of the beholder. We should remember but are actually keen to forget that “Osama bin Laden was a freedom fighter for Reagan but a terrorist for Bush. One can change sides without changing tactics.”[9]

The term “terrorism” is used by the political classes and the media in an opportunistic manner to describe actions and ensure pejorative connotations to a particular case. It can be argued that this is a tactic used to enforce greater constraints on citizens’ civil liberties or to start wars abroad in the name of national security. When I think of an act of terrorism, for example, I think of images of innocent civilians dying. I assume most people would think of something similar, perhaps 9/11 or 7/7. However, in common usage the term terrorism is applied to acts where a civilian has not been hurt nor has there been an attempt to hurt or incite others to hurt.

An example is the case of Afsana Khayum who was sentenced to 18 months in prison on terrorism charges,[10] for having possession of Al-Qaeda’s Inspire magazine. Another example is the case of Rizwaan Sabir, who was arrested for downloading an Al-Qaeda training manual from the US Department of Defence website, as part of his Masters research at the University of Nottingham.[11] If we described these acts as they were, rather than in inflammatory headlines, maybe the population would not be so receptive to many of the arrests and convictions taking place. Perhaps we would not be so keen to surrender our civil liberties to the state and security services to “keep us safe” from so many “foiled plots.” The word “terrorism” is instead used as the “rhetorical servant of the established order.”[12]

The securitised mindset of our politicians is wrong. Terrorism laws should not exist. The focus on a motive for terrorism such as an ideological, political or religious cause, as in the British Terrorism Act[13] is inconsistent within the wider British legal framework. Substantive criminal law looks at the mens rea or the guilty mind of an individual. Crimes require either intention or recklessness to be crimes. Motive is irrelevant in determining guilt.

The above is a technical, legal argument. However, there are practical problems through having terrorism law, especially the motive requirement. When there is a focus on the defendant’s religion or politics this can prolong trials. The use of expert witnesses to explain the meaning of religious or political doctrines to the jury elongate trials ad nauseum. It can also generate a deleterious effect of making it appear that the accused has been arrested on the basis of their faith or ideology.

Criminal investigations considering “terrorism” should focus on the violence or preparation for the violence rather than on the philosophy upon which they are allegedly based. A focus on an ideology could have the adverse effect of discriminating against religious or political groups which express views which are disliked by the mainstream in society. The police will invariably profile what they assume is the archetypal terrorist. In yesteryear in the UK this was an Irishman; today it is somebody who looks like a Muslim. It has led to particular groups being labelled a “suspect community.”[14]

The British government has used the term terrorism to justify the infringement of civil liberties and the rule of law. Such a politicised approach to crime prevention has led to the sweeping criminalisation of the Muslim community. The regular criminal law is sufficient to deal with acts considered terrorist. An alternative body of law need not exist.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/breaking-bad-the-governments-stance-on-terrorism-law/feed/819218United statement against the criminalisation of Islām in UKhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/united-statement-against-the-criminalisation-of-islam/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/united-statement-against-the-criminalisation-of-islam/#commentsWed, 11 Mar 2015 12:08:19 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=17125What follows is a joint statement that has been signed by scholars, leaders and activists from all corners of the Muslim community in Britain. A show of unity and cooperation this broad is something very rare if not unprecedented. It includes signatories from a diverse spectrum of theological and political leanings. In shā Allāh this ...

]]>What follows is a joint statement that has been signed by scholars, leaders and activists from all corners of the Muslim community in Britain. A show of unity and cooperation this broad is something very rare if not unprecedented. It includes signatories from a diverse spectrum of theological and political leanings. In shā Allāh this is a good example of the divine injunction,

‘And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression.’ [1]

We hope that it signals the ushering in of a new phase of cooperation and unity among the Muslims of the United Kingdom towards common, noble objectives.

Muslim community rejects the State’s criminalisation of Islām and condemns moves to silence legitimate critique and dissent

This joint statement expresses a position with respect to the ongoing demonisation of Muslims in Britain, their values as well as prominent scholars, speakers and organisations.

We, the undersigned Imāms, Sheikhs, advocates, activists, community leaders, community organisations and student bodies of the Muslim community, make the following points in this regard:

1) We reject the exploitation of Muslim issues and the ‘terror threat’ for political capital, in particular in the run up to a general election. Exploiting public fears about security is as dishonourable as exploiting public fears about immigration. Both deflect attention from crises in the economy and health service. They are crude and divisive tactics by which the big parties inevitably try to outdo each other in their nastiness.

2) We deplore the continued public targeting of Muslims through endless ‘anti-terror’ laws. There have been approximately ten pieces of legislation since the year 2000, all giving huge powers to the state, which have fuelled a media hysteria even though in most cases no crime was committed. This has created a distressing and harmful backlash towards Muslims, especially women and children.

3) We reject the portrayal of Muslims and the Muslim community as a security threat. The latest Act of Parliament, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, threatens to create a ‘McCarthyite’ witch-hunt against Muslims, with nursery workers, schoolteachers and Universities expected to look out for signs of increased Islamic practice as signs of ‘radicalisation’. Such a narrative will only further damage social cohesion as it incites suspicion and ill feeling in the broader community.

4) The expedient use of undefined and politically charged words like ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ is unacceptable as it criminalises legitimate political discourse and criticism of the stance of successive governments towards Muslims domestically and abroad. We strongly oppose political proposals to further ‘tackle’ and ‘crack down’ on such dissenting voices in the Muslim community despite their disavowal of violence and never having supported terrorist acts.

5) Similarly, it is unacceptable to label as ‘extremist’ numerous normative Islamic opinions on a variety of issues, founded on the Qur’ān and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), implying there is a link between them and violence, using such labels as an excuse to silence speakers.

6) We affirm our commitment to robust political and ideological debate and discourse for the betterment of humanity at large. The attempts by the state to undermine this bring into question its commitment to its very own purported values and liberal freedoms.

7) We affirm our concern about peace and security for all. We, however, refuse to be lectured on peace-building and harmony by a government that plays divisive politics and uses fear to elicit uncertainty in the general public, whilst maintaining support for dictators across the Muslim world, who continue to brutalise political opposition to their tyranny.

8) We affirm our intention to hold on to our beliefs and values, to speak out for what is right and against what is wrong based on our principles, whether that be on matters such as the securitisation of society, corporate hegemony, war and peace, economic exploitation, social and moral issues in society, nationalism and racism. Not to do so would be dangerous and would leave our community unguided.

9) We call on all fair-minded people in Britain – including politicians, journalists, academics, bloggers and others concerned about fairness for all – to continue to scrutinise the scare tactics, fear-mongering and machinations of politicians, which do not bode well for societal harmony and only increase the alienation felt and experienced by Britain’s Muslim community.

It is time that politicians stop diverting the attention of the British public away from its domestic crises and disastrous foreign policies by repeatedly playing the ‘Muslim’ or ‘national security’ card.

Signed:

Abdurraheem Green, Chairman of the Islamic Education and Research Academy